I suppose simulating what the call would do using a trial run would also work?
If so, then yeah, sometimes judges do throw out deceptive contracts based on "gotcha" clauses with non-obvious implications the counterparty couldn't have reasonably expected. But here, it would be like if the signer had continuous access to a resource that would instantly answer any implication about any scenario they had in mind, and the signer refused to test it for even one scenario they were planning to use the contract for. I image judges being a lot less sympathetic to that kind of mistake.